And, you made the point perfectly: “every particle had wavelength and frequency”

Part of the implication from those who say everything is vibration is also that everything is, fundamentally, particles… an arguable proposition.

But, more to the point, even if it were possible to measure the wavelength of a thing, say a BMW, the notion that some other macro thing, say someone in a New Age bookstore, could change themselves to match that wavelength, and that through resonance this would “attract” the car to them like a magnet is, oh, what’s the technical term? Nonsense.

I seemed to recall from Freshman physics that the deBroglie wave equation showed that every particle had wavelength and frequency (though for particles as big as you and me, our wavelength is extraordinarily low). Everything vibrates, but not everything “is” vibration.

You can see the MIT lecture on wave/particle duality at the below link on the MIT Open Courseware platform (requires RealPlayer from http://real.com). The professor uses a baseball as the example, implying that even macro objects do have wavelength. He also points out that the wavelength of a baseball is so small that it isn’t relevant.

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/hs/physics/r/2/2.htm

Nope, your remark was not the inspiration.

To answer question #2… oh, geez, I’ve had a thing for physics ever since I became a ham radio operator when I was 12 (it used to freak out my parents when some 50+ year old guy would show up at our house so I could tutor him in electronics and antenna theory… though that wasn’t until I was 14 )

For your 3rd question about what books to recommend… hmmm… the most layperson-friendly books are by Briane Greene (The Elegant Universe, The Fabric of the Cosmos). He’s a bit string-theory happy, but is a great writer. Stephen Hawking’s books are good, too.

The bibliography in any of those books will point you in some good directions.

Everything is NOT energy.

In physics, there is great debate about what “everything” is… or whether there even IS an “everything”.

E=mc2 means that matter can be converted to energy, there’s an equivalence, not that it IS energy. The equation also suggests that you could convert energy into matter.

We’ve seen an example of the former — an atomic bomb — and look how much effort/energy it took to make that bit of matter convert to energy (not perfectly, either). I don’t think we’ve seen an example of anyone turning energy into matter, which further highlights that they’re not equal in the real world, just equivalent in a theoretical world.

Oh, part 2 — everything is not VIBRATION either.

This idea went through the roof when string theorists proposed — PROPOSED, as in “It’s mathematically possible, but we don’t have any example of this” — that the fundamental unit of “stuff” is a ONE-DIMENSIONAL “vibrating string.”

Again, the idea that this means “things vibrate” is a METAPHOR. Something ONE DIMENSIONAL is not even remotely like anything that we can imagine which vibrates.

That there are many things in the world that do vibrate at different frequencies does not mean that EVERYTHING vibrates.

Oh, part 3 — you can order one of my “Quantum Physics - It’s not just for physicists anymore” t-shirt at http://www.delightened.com

That’s all pretty clear, at least as far as I can tell, knowing that my ideas about how to tell what’s clear and what isn’t aren’t necessarily valid.

I guess that’s why we land at something like just doing what we do and being peaceful about it or not?

I ask that way based on “Which way do you think you would you be more effective - peaceful or stressful?” And I always come up with “peaceful” since I’m not evaluating truly life-threatening situations.

Love, Ann